Find Admin Count Accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real operational context: how AdminSDHolder sets the flag, that it is not auto-cleared on group removal, and that stale accounts retain a hardened non-inherited ACL. That is meaningful auditing-domain behavior an agent would not get from structured fields. It stops short of describing result limits or ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the mechanism and the reason it matters. Every sentence carries information; the ellipsis in the protected-group list is a minor informality but not waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint covering safety, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema doc coverage, leaving `limit` and `domain` unexplained leaves an agent guessing about scope and result size.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only `base` (a DN that scopes to an OU) and leaves `limit` and `domain` completely undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete verb+resource: find users whose adminCount=1, including stale markers. It defines exactly what class of object this returns, but does not distinguish it from the sibling `audit_admin_accounts`, which plausibly overlaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied via the audit-finding framing ('common audit finding') and the `base` scoping hint. There is no explicit when-to-use versus `audit_admin_accounts` or `find_users`, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.